Changes in the use of end points in clinical trials for elderly cancer patients over time.

BACKGROUND: Physicians need well-addressed clinical trials assessing benefits and harm of treatments to avoid under-treatment or over-treatment of elderly patients. The main objectives of this report were to present an overview of end points used in clinical trials dedicated to elderly patients; and to assess the evolution in chosen end points before and after the creation of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology in the early 2000s. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All phases I, II and III trials dedicated to the treatment of cancer among elderly patients published between 2001 and 2004 and between 2011 and 2014 were reviewed. All phase III clinical trials assessing cancer treatments among adults in the same periods were also reviewed to identify subgroup analyses of elderly patients among these trials. RESULTS: Among phase III trials dedicated to elderly patients, overall survival was a common primary end point. Interestingly, tumor centered end points were very common in the first time period and very uncommon in the second time period, whereas composite end points were very uncommon in the first time period but very common in the second time period. Concerningly, disease-specific survival was very infrequently reported in dedicated clinical trials of elderly patients despite their importance in evaluating competing risk of death from non-oncology causes. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as a primary end point remained very uncommon but the reporting of PROs as a secondary end point tended to increase in the second time period, from 19% to 33% (P = 0.10). Functional status was infrequently reported. CONCLUSION: During the past decade, the use of clinically meaningful end points such as PROs and functional status in elderly patients remained moderate. Yet, the use of PROs as a secondary end point tended to increase between the two time periods.

A phase I, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of GSK2256098, a focal adhesion kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Focal adhesion kinase (FAK) is important in cancer growth, survival, invasion, and migration. The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the FAK inhibitor, GSK2256098, in cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The dose of GSK2256098 was escalated, in cohorts of patients with advanced cancer, from 80 to 1500 mg, oral twice daily (BID), until the MTD was determined. Serial blood samples were obtained from all patients, and the PK was determined. Paired tumor biopsies were obtained in select patients, and the level of phospho-FAK (pFAK) was determined. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (39 males, 23 females; median age 61 y.o., range 21-84) received GSK2256098. Dose-limiting toxicities of grade 2 proteinuria (1000 mg BID), grade 2 fatigue, nausea, vomiting (1250 mg BID), and grade 3 asthenia and grade 2 fatigue (1500 mg BID) were reported with the MTD identified as 1000 mg BID. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were nausea (76%), diarrhea (65%), vomiting (58%), and decreased appetite (47%) with the majority of AEs being grades 1-2. The PK was generally dose proportional with a geometric mean elimination half-life range of 4-9 h. At the 750, 1000, and 1500 mg BID dose levels evaluated, the pFAK, Y397 autophosphorylation site, was reduced by ∼80% from baseline. Minor responses were observed in a patient with melanoma (-26%) and three patients with mesothelioma (-13%, -15%, and -17%). In the 29 patients with recurrent mesothelioma, the median progression-free survival was 12 weeks with 95% CI 9.1, 23.4 weeks (23.4 weeks merlin negative, n = 14; 11.4 weeks merlin positive, n = 9; 10.9 weeks merlin status unknown, n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: GSK2256098 has an acceptable safety profile, has evidence of target engagement at doses at or below the MTD, and has clinical activity in patients with mesothelioma, particularly those with merlin loss.

Inclusion of elderly patients in oncology clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Physicians need clinical trials assessing benefits and harms of treatments to avoid under-treatment or over-treatment of elderly patients. The main objectives of this report were to examine how data regarding elderly oncology patients were presented in medical literature; and to assess the evolution of this presentation between two time periods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All phases I, II and III trials dedicated to the treatment of cancer among elderly patients published between 2001 and 2004 and between 2011 and 2014 were reviewed. All phase III clinical trials assessing cancer treatments among adults in the same periods were also reviewed to evaluate potential subgroup analyses in elderly patients in these studies. Key characteristics of interest were extracted by two investigators before descriptive and comparative analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 1084 trials were included: 366 and 718 from the first and second time period, respectively. Twenty-seven and 193 of these trials were phase I and II trials dedicated to elderly or frail patients, respectively. A large proportion of phase III trials published between 2011 and 2014 reported at least one analysis dedicated to elderly patients (46.7%) versus 19.3% during the first time period. The use of subgroup analyses of elderly patients in phase III trials was the most frequent source of information. Subgroup analyses were more frequent among trials with industrial funding, trials published in high impact factor journal, intercontinental trials and trials with large sample size. The age threshold defining the elderly subgroup increased over time. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients have become a topic of interest during the past decade. However, data available are mostly extracted from subgroup analyses, which can only be regarded as preliminary evidence.

The reporting of adverse events in oncology phase III trials: a comparison of the current status versus the expectations of the EORTC members.

BACKGROUND: Determination of drug safety and tolerability is usually based on the frequency of certain key adverse events (AEs) rather than the frequency of all-grade toxicities. We assessed the reporting of key AEs in oncology randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and compared that with the expectations of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) membership. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RCTs reports published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed regarding the reporting of key AEs, namely: grade 3/4 AEs, grade 5 AEs, and AEs resulting in study withdrawal or in dose reduction. Study characteristics associated with better reporting of key AEs were investigated. Finally, a survey was conducted among the EORTC membership to determine their expectations on key AEs reporting. RESULTS: Although the frequency of grade 3/4 was reported in most reports (96%), only 17% of them described the reporting threshold above which grade 3/4 AEs were included for reporting, raising the possibility that important but less frequent grade 3/4 AEs might be underreported. Frequency and nature of grade 5 AEs were adequately reported in 161 (50%) of manuscripts; AEs leading to study withdrawal in 61 manuscripts (19%); and AEs leading to dose reduction in 43 manuscripts (13%). In contrast, most EORTC members expected a comprehensive reporting of grade 5 AEs (96% of EORTC member's responses), AEs leading to study withdrawal (86%) and AEs leading to dose reduction (70%). In multivariate analysis, frequencies of grade 5 AEs were less frequently reported in European trials (P = 0.004). Frequencies of AEs leading to withdrawals were more frequently reported in trials funded by industry (P = 0.005) and in trials including patients with breast or urological cancers (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that current practice of key AEs reporting remains highly variable and sometimes inadequate in oncology RCTs reports. Current standards for safety reporting in RCTs should be revised to emphasize the importance of key AEs reporting.

Poor patient-reported outcomes reporting according to CONSORT guidelines in randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidance was extended in 2013 to provide a set of specific recommendations regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). There is limited data regarding how well current publications of oncology RCTs report PROs if assessed using these guidelines. DESIGN: All phase III medical oncology RCTs published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed according to the 2013 PROs CONSORT recommendations and an 11-point PROs reporting quality score (PRORQS) was defined based on the criteria. RESULTS: The majority of trials did not report on PROs at all (201 of 325; 62%). Of the remaining 124 trials, the mean PRORQS score was 5.0 on an 11-point scale. The items related to methods of PROs collection and analysis were poorly reported (Description of the prespecified PRO hypothesis: 26% of RCTs; methods for PRO data collection (paper, telephone, electronic, other): 16%; statistical approaches for managing missing data: 37%). The only factor significantly associated with improved PROs reporting was where PROs reporting was the subject of a dedicated secondary manuscript, as was the case in 36 of the 124 (29%) of RCTs. CONCLUSION: Despite their clinical relevance, our findings show that some aspects of PROs reporting may greatly be improved, especially critical methodological aspects of PROs collection and analysis. The exceptions were where PROs were described in PROs-specific secondary publication. Use of the 2013 PROs CONSORT extensions should be encouraged and their effects on PROs reporting subsequently reassessed.

Local perspective on a rare brain tumour: adult medulloblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Little contemporary data are available regarding Australian patterns of care in adult medulloblastoma. It is unclear whether treatment, extrapolated from paediatric protocols despite known differences between the two groups, results in comparable efficacy. AIM: To perform a retrospective review of patterns of care in adult medulloblastoma, especially with respect to adjuvant chemotherapy, in Australian patients. METHODS: All medulloblastoma patients aged 15 years or older at two neuro-oncology institutions were identified from January 1995-May 2011. Patients with supratentorial or peripheral tumours were excluded. Standardised data were extracted from each institution regarding symptoms, disease staging, treatments received, toxicities and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen eligible patients were identified. Median age was 37 years (range 20-67 years). All had good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1). There were 11 standard-risk de novo patients, three high-risk de novo patients and three patients with recurrent disease. Median overall survival (OS) had not been reached for standard-risk patients with median follow up of 58 months. The median OS for high-risk de novo patients was 21 months, while the median OS was 15 months for patients with recurrent disease. Treatment was well tolerated, with haematological toxicities being most common. CONCLUSIONS: Combined modality therapy (surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy) was well tolerated and associated with good outcomes in standard-risk de novo patients. High-risk and recurrent disease patients do extremely poorly regardless of treatment and better treatment strategies are needed in these patients.

A single centre study of the treatment of relapsed primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) with single agent temozolomide.

Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare form of extra-nodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Although recommendations for first-line treatment usually incorporate high-dose methotrexate, there is substantial heterogeneity in the types of salvage therapies used at relapse. Phase II data supported the use of temozolomide as a well-tolerated treatment modality in this setting. Therefore, we reviewed the treatment and outcomes of patients with relapsed PCNSL who were treated with salvage temozolomide at our institution. Seven patients were treated with salvage temozolomide between January 2000 and May 2011. The objective response rate was 14%. Progression-free survival was 2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0-5.9) and median overall survival was 4 months (95% CI: 0-13). Toxicity was mild, with one episode of grade 3 neutropenia during 25 cycles of chemotherapy. Although these results are consistent with previous phase II results, the outcomes for these patients remain extremely poor. The low toxicity of temozolomide raises the possibility of combining temozolomide with other chemotherapeutic agents or targeted agents in future clinical trials.

Targeted therapies for renal cell carcinoma: more gains from using them again.

The development of molecularly targeted agents that inhibit pathways critical to the development of renal cell carcinoma has significantly improved outcomes in patients with these cancers. Compelling scientific and phase iii data have made the use of molecularly targeted agents the standard of care in first-line treatment. Now, available data show that re-treating patients with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors after they progress on sunitinib or sorafenib, or both, is beneficial. A large phase iii trial recently showed that, as compared with placebo, treatment with everolimus, an inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), almost halved the risk of progression (37% vs. 65%) and doubled the median progression-free survival (4 months vs. 2 months). Overall survival was not improved in that study, likely reflecting treatment crossover in the placebo arm, but these data position everolimus as the second-line standard of care. A consistent and growing body of literature also suggests that re-treatment with other kinase inhibitors that the patient has not previously encountered is a reasonable option. Outcomes of initial treatment with sunitinib or sorafenib (or both) should not deter the use of second-line targeted therapy, because the first-line use of targeted agents does not appear to be predictive of outcomes with second-line therapy. However, in view of poor absolute outcomes after second-line treatment and the benefits seen with rationally developed targeted agents in the first-line setting, enrolment of second- and subsequent-line patients in further trials would be preferable.

Managing toxicities and optimal dosing of targeted drugs in advanced kidney cancer.

The toxicities of new, targeted drugs may diminish their effectiveness in advanced kidney cancer if those toxicities are not recognized and properly addressed early in patient treatment. Most of the drug-related toxicities in advanced kidney cancer are manageable with supportive care, obviating a need for long interruptions, dose reductions, or permanent discontinuation of the treatment.

In vitro sensitivity testing of minimally passaged and uncultured gliomas with TRAIL and/or chemotherapy drugs.

TRAIL/Apo-2L has shown promise as an anti-glioma drug, based on investigations of TRAIL sensitivity in established glioma cell lines, but it is not known how accurately TRAIL signalling pathways of glioma cells in vivo are reproduced in these cell lines in vitro. To replicate as closely as possible the in vivo behaviour of malignant glioma cells, 17 early passage glioma cell lines and 5 freshly resected gliomas were exposed to TRAIL-based agents and/or chemotherapeutic drugs. Normal human hepatocytes and astrocytes and established glioma cell lines were also tested. Cross-linked TRAIL, but not soluble TRAIL, killed both normal cell types and cells from three tumours. Cells from only one glioma were killed by soluble TRAIL, although only inefficiently. High concentrations of cisplatin were lethal to glioma cells, hepatocytes and astrocytes. Isolated combinations of TRAIL and chemotherapy drugs were more toxic to particular gliomas than normal cells, but no combination was generally selective for glioma cells. This study highlights the widespread resistance of glioma cells to TRAIL-based agents, but suggests that a minority of high-grade glioma patients may benefit from particular combinations of TRAIL and chemotherapy drugs. In vitro sensitivity assays may help identify effective drug combinations for individual glioma patients.